The main legal point established in the judgment is that partial preemption is not permissible under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, and the right of preemption must be exercised in accordance with the entire bargain, not for specific portions of land.

Shivakant Prasad, J.

1. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Tehatta at Nadia in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36 of 2013, affirming the order dated 30.9.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tehatta, Nadia in Miscellaneous Preemption Case No. 14 of 2011.

2. Brief facts leading to this case is that the suit plot being RS and LR Plot No. 2608 appertaining to LR Khatian No. 2501previously belonged to Bijoy Krishna Hira who transferred 11 decimals of land to Santosh Kumar Hira by a registered deed of gift No. 1651 dated 27.4.2004 and delivered possession thereof. Said Santosh Kumar Hira sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land in the suit plot to the petitioner Sudhir Hira vide sale deed No. 6801/09 and delivered possession thereof. Accordingly, the petitioner/preemptor claimed to be a co-sharer in the suit plot. Said Santosh Kumar Hira sold land in various plots including land measuring 1.65 decimals to the opposite parties/preemptee Nos. 1 & 2 stranger purchaser on 09.08.2010 by a registered sale deed No. 6163 of 2010 without knowledge of the preemptor as no notice under Section 5 of the WBLR Act was served upon him. The preemtor came to know about the transfer on 05.12.2010. It is contended that in order to avoid preemption, the preemptees purchased the suit property mentioned in the schedule ‘A’ of the preemption petition along with other non-suit plots for a consideration of Rs. 2,56,500/-.

3. The preemptees contested the preemption case denying all materials particulars and prayed for dismissal of the case. The specific case of the present petitioners is that the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. That apart the preemption is barred by the law of limitation.

4. Defense taken by the preemptees in the Trial Court is that by a registered deed of sale Exbt. 4, several other non-suit plots were transferred and as such partial pre-emption cannot be allowed but the learned Courts below have failed to consider that the present petitioners/preemptees have purchased a demarcated portion in the suit plot and as such the preemptor is not a co-sharer and thereby committed error in law and in fact by allowing the preemption application under Section 8 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act vide order dated 30.09.2013.

5. The present petitioners have contended that the learned Appeal Court below while dismissing the appeal held that there is no partition within the meaning of Section 14 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, as such the preemptor was held entitled to get an order of preemption on the ground of co-sharer irrespective of the fact of purchase of demarcated portion of the suit property.

6. Learned Advocate for the present petitioners has relied on a decision in case of Arindam Joardar vs. Tarun Raha and others reported in (2016) 3 Cal. CHN 61 where the case was that a common owner had transferred the specific portions out of the entire plot with defined areas and boundaries to different purchasers on different dates mentioning his proportionate share with reference to the entire jama. It was in the context of a fact that original owner had gifted to his three sons exclusive demarcated property and held that none of them can claim to be a co-sharer of the other; otherwise the deed of gift fails. It was so held by taking into consideration a decision in case of Smt. Labanya Bala Debi Vs. Smt. Parul Bala Debi & Ors. (77 CWN 272). Accordingly, the revisional application was dismissed finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts of law.

7. Learned Advocate for the present petitioners also relied in the case of Narendra Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. Smt. Gursharan Kaur & Ors. reported in (2016) 2 CHN 613 in which case, one Mira Debi had owned and possessed 28 cents in the plot described in ‘A’